Methods of Third-Party Intervention - Berghof Handbook for Conflict ...

Methods of 

Third-Party Intervention 

Ronald J. Fisher

Abstract 

About the Contributor 

Copyright 

Third party intervention is a typical response to destructive and 

persistent social conflict and comes in a number of different forms 

attended by a variety of issues. Mediation is a common form of 

intervention designed to facilitate a negotiated settlement on substantive 

issues between conflicting parties. Mediators are usually external to the 

parties and carry an identity, motives and competencies required to play 

a useful role in addressing the dispute. While impartiality is generally 

seen as an important prerequisite for effective intervention, biased 

mediators also appear to have a role to play. 

This article lays out the different forms of third-party 

intervention in a taxonomy of six methods, and proposes a contingency 

model which matches each type of intervention to the appropriate stage 

of conflict escalation. Interventions are then sequenced, in order to assist 

the parties in de-escalating and resolving the conflict. It must be pointed 

out, however, that the mixing of interventions with different power bases 

raises a number of ethical and moral questions about the use of reward 

and coercive power by third parties. The article then discusses several 

issues around the practice of intervention. It is essential to give these 

issues careful consideration if third-party methods are to play their 

proper and useful role in the wider process of conflict transformation. 

Ron Fisher is Professor of Conflict Analysis and Management at 

Royal Roads University, Victoria, Canada. He holds a B.A. Hon. and M.A. in 

Psychology from the University of Saskatchewan and a Ph.D. in Social 

Psychology from the University of Michigan. He has provided training and 

consulting services to various organizations and international institutes 

in conflict management. His current interests include third party 

intervention, interactive conflict resolution, and reconciliation in 

situations of ethnopolitical conflict. 

Berghof Handbook 

for Conflict Transformation 

April 2001-03-30 

© Berghof Research Center for Constructive 

Conflict Management 

ISSN 1616-2544 

Contact Address: 

info@berghof-center.org 

Berghof Research Center for Constructive 

Conflict Management, 

Altensteinstr. 48a, 

D-14195 Berlin, 

Germany.

I. Introduction .......................................................................................................................1 

II. Mediation ........................................................................................................................ 4 

II.1 Definition and Expression ............................................................................................. 4 

II.2 Identity and Motives .....................................................................................................6 

II.3 Qualities and Competencies ......................................................................................... 8 

II.4 Assessing Effectiveness ................................................................................................ 9 

III. Forms of Third-Party Intervention ..................................................................................10 

III.1 A Taxonomy of Methods ..............................................................................................10 

III.2 A Contingency Approach to Intervention .....................................................................12 

IV. Issues in Third-Party Intervention .................................................................................. 17 

IV.1 Culture .........................................................................................................................18 

IV.2 Power Asymmetries .....................................................................................................18 

IV.3 Third-Party Bias ...........................................................................................................19 

IV.4 Timing and Ripeness in Mediation .............................................................................. 20 

IV.5 Effectiveness in Third-Party Mediation ........................................................................21 

IV.6 The Ethics of Intervention ........................................................................................... 22 

V. Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 24 

VI. Reference and Further Reading ..................................................................................... 25 

Contents

Third-party intervention in situations of human conflict has a 

long history and a wide variety of forms and functions. Disputants in 

most, if not all, societies and at all levels of social interaction have had 

access to external actors to whom they can turn when they find they are 

unable to manage their differences by themselves. A common response 

to perceived incompatibilities in goals, methods or values between 

contesting parties is to enter into a process of negotiation in order to 

reach a mutually acceptable agreement on such differences. Negotiation 

thus appears to be a universal, human phenomenon, although it is of 

course expressed in variations that are appropriate to each cultural 

context. 

Mediation, which is intended to facilitate the negotiation 

process, also needs to be practiced within the norms and assumptions of 

any given cultural milieu, whether that be the culture of a given society or 

identity group, an organization or set of institutions, or international 

diplomacy. At the same time, Western theorists and practitioners of 

negotiation and mediation have attempted to spell out generic models of 

these processes, which they hope will serve to capture many of the 

essential elements. Much further cross-cultural research will be 

necessary to tell us if this is indeed the case. 

In these models, the various forms of observed third-party 

intervention are distinguished primarily by the degree of power that the 

intervener exercises over the process and outcome of the conflict. At the 

high end of such a power spectrum, disputes may be made subject to 

legal rulings through adjudication or binding decisions by means of 

arbitration. In the middle range of influence, powerful mediators may 

make use of a whole range of inducements or threatened punishments in 

order to move the disputants toward settlement. At the low end of the 

power continuum, third parties may play a facilitative and diagnostic role, 

helping conflicting parties to understand their problem more clearly and 

assisting them in their efforts to construct agreements or restructure their 

relationship. At a minimum, intervenors will typically work to improve 

communication between the parties, so that they can more effectively 

manage their differences. Sometimes the work of the third-party can be 

as simple as providing a neutral venue and a façade for face-saving, so 

that the disputants can meet to address their conflict. 

This continuum of power along which third-party interventions 

vary is characterized not only by a descending capacity to influence, but 

also by a noteworthy shift in the type of power exercised. Thus more 

traditional, coercive methods engage influence and control as “power 

over”, while problem-solving methods seek to engage and induce “power 

with”, to draw on a useful distinction from the feminist literature (Schaef, 

1981; Taylor & Miller, 1994). In a similar vein, Weeks (1992) speaks of 

“negative power” as the effort to gain advantage over the other party, 

Introduction 

Page 1

Fisher 

versus “positive power” that works to promote the constructive 

capabilities of both parties. Clearly, the more recent and more innovative 

forms of third-party intervention will operate through “power with”, and 

seek to influence antagonists toward the use of “positive” rather than 

“negative” power. In order to do this, the third-party will seek to maintain 

control over the process of the intervention, rather than over the 

outcomes. 

The defining characteristics of the third-party are of course 

central to the exercise of influence and intertwine with the functions in 

the determination of outcomes. The identity of the intermediary must 

therefore be duly considered, especially in terms of his or her relationship 

with the conflicting parties, as this is will have a bearing on status and 

impartiality. It is essential to know if the third-party is to serve in an 

official or formal role, with all the requirements and limitations that this 

entails, or whether he or she is instead operating in an unofficial or 

informal capacity, with greater freedom of movement but also with higher 

ambiguity. Identity is also closely linked to the motives and interests 

which lead an outsider to become involved in the domain of the conflict, 

as well as to the qualities and competencies that the third-party brings to 

the process. While most theorizing about these different aspects of the 

nature of the third-party has taken place mainly around the method of 

mediation, similar questions need to be asked of all forms of intervention. 

A more recent notion in the current third-party literature is the 

idea that not all conflicts at all points in time will be amenable to a single 

and unified method of intervention. In other words, it is important to 

carefully consider all key elements of the conflict in question before 

surmising which form of intervention is likely to be most useful in moving 

the parties toward settlement and resolution. 

The defining characteristics of the context of the conflict need to 

be considered in the light of the question as to which type of third-party 

might intervene in the conflict most effectively and in which manner. 

Attention also needs to be paid to the stage of the conflict, which can 

range from initial expression and management through escalation to 

stalemate and exhaustion, and hopefully to negotiation, settlement, and 

post settlement. The role of violence in rendering conflicts protracted and 

seemingly intractable raises particularly difficult problems for 

interveners. This type of thinking, seeks to adapt method to certain 

aspects of reality, appears contrary to much traditional practice, 

especially in the area of mediation, which persists in applying the same 

medicine to what may be widely disparate problems. 

Likewise, the interplay between forms of third-party 

intervention and conflict transformation must be considered carefully, 

particularly because the various forms will typically play different roles in 

the overall process. Traditional mediation, especially as practiced from a

coercive power base, seeks above all to halt violence and gain a quick 

settlement which is often in the interests of the status quo. Consequently, 

processes of social change toward greater equity and equilibrium are 

suppressed. More innovative and less official forms of intervention, such 

as problem-solving workshops, which focus instead on the analysis of 

underlying causes of the conflict in order to address the legitimate 

underlying interest of all parties, are more clearly directed toward longerterm 

conflict transformation. 

In this work, power asymmetries must be considered and the 

relationship of destruction transformed into one that manages conflict 

constructively. Conflict transformation further requires that the 

antagonists agree upon and create the political, economic and social 

structures that will engender positive peace with social justice over the 

longer term. It is clear that these kinds of outcomes require more complex 

and coordinated third-party activities than the field of conflict resolution 

has been able to develop and implement so far. 

There is, in summary, a fair degree of both confusion and 

dissension as well as clarity and agreement in the domain of third-party 

intervention. There are many issues and questions that need to be 

addressed through theory, research, and practice. I have alluded to the 

question of cultural “generalizability” and appropriateness, as well as to 

the issues of third-party bias and motivation. When we then consider the 

further questions of the timing of intervention and the reality of power 

asymmetries between the parties, we begin to appreciate the enormous 

complexity of the challenges for both understanding and practice. 

In addition, basic questions must be asked about the overall 

effectiveness of third-party activities, as well as about the ethics of 

intervention, often in systems which are foreign to one’s own. It is not 

surprising that the domain of third-party intervention is currently one of 

the most active for social science theoreticians and practitioners. 

This article will focus first on the method of mediation, 

acknowledging its role as one of the most commonly applied and studied 

forms of intervention in conflicts. This will set the larger stage for a 

consideration of the various forms and functions of third-party 

intervention, some of which draw their appeal from their supplementary 

nature to mediation and negotiation. A rudimentary model for matching 

types of interventions to the stage of conflict escalation will be presented 

as an initial heuristic for realizing the potential complementarity of 

different forms of intervention. Finally, a number of issues will be 

identified that can affect the overall current and future usefulness of 

third-party intervention in addressing the multitude of destructive 

conflicts that regularly beset humankind. 

Page 3

Fisher 

II. Mediation 

II.1 Definition and Expression 

There are a myriad of definitions of mediation now available in 

the literature, but these all rely on a core of common characteristics. 

Briefly put: mediation is generally seen as the intervention of a skilled 

and impartial intermediary working to facilitate a mutually acceptable 

negotiated settlement on the issues that are the substance of the dispute 

between the parties. As such, mediation is essentially a pacific, noncoercive 

and non-binding approach to conflict management that is 

entered into freely by the concerned parties, who at the same time 

maintain control over the substance of the agreement. Thus, mediation is 

primarily a task-oriented method directed toward solving a shared 

problem of the parties; it is, in general, not directly concerned with the 

nature of the social relationship between the parties. Mediation can be 

directed toward disputes between two parties in its bilateral form, but 

can also involve multiple parties when it is called upon to assist in 

multilateral negotiations. The greater complexity and challenge of such 

multilateral interventions have only recently become the subject of 

theoretical and empirical attention in the mediation field. 

As social conflict is an omnipresent facet of the human 

experience, it is hardly surprising that mediation finds expression at all 

levels of social functioning and in apparently all societies, past and 

present. According to a comprehensive yet concise treatment of the 

history of mediation by Christopher Moore (1996), this form of third-party 

intervention has been employed in almost all cultures in all regions of the 

world and in all phases of recorded history. Religious leaders, community 

elders, and, at times, special intermediaries have all played the role of 

mediator in their various efforts to deal with potentially destructive 

disputes in their respective collectivities. The current practice of 

mediation in secular, Western societies has seen the role proliferate to 

address all manner of disputes at the interpersonal level, from divorce 

and custody issues between separating spouses, to workplace grievances 

and complaints, to fights on school playgrounds, to landlord-tenant 

problems, to consumer complaints, and to corporate battles between 

executives. 

At the intergroup level, union-management mediation looks 

back on a long institutional history, while third-party intervention at the 

community level in racial and neighborhood disputes is, on the other 

hand, a more recent phenomenon. Intervention into multi-party 

environmental, regulatory and public policy disputes is also a growing 

area of practice and theory. Alternative Dispute Resolution works 

alongside the courts to apply mediation to criminal and legal issues 

through programs such as victim-offender reconciliation. The thrust of all 

of these initiatives is to replace or augment traditional and usually

authoritarian or adversarial methods of conflict management with 

approaches that instead require some form of joint problem-solving on 

the part of the antagonists. 

The rapid proliferation of mediation methods at the domestic 

level in the United States and some other countries since the 1960s has 

produced a growing body of literature that seeks to understand the 

process and its various applications. As Baruch Bush and Joseph Folger 

(1994) point out in their work on the transformative potential of the 

discipline, mediation continues to be generally understood as “an 

informal process in which a neutral third-party with no power to impose a 

resolution helps the disputing parties try to reach a mutually acceptable 

settlement (p. 2).” Their analysis identifies four competing “stories” or 

accounts of mediation, each emphasizing different dimensions of the 

process and its outcomes. 

The “satisfaction story” argues that mediation facilitates 

collaborative problem-solving, as opposed to distributive bargaining, and 

thereby produces integrative solutions that can satisfy all parties. The 

“social justice” story proposes that mediation helps to organize people 

with common interests into stronger communities that are less 

dependent on outside actors to solve their problems and thus less 

vulnerable to exploitation. The “oppression story” presents a radically 

different picture, contending that mediation has become an instrument 

for the powerful to take advantage of the weak in society. Finally, the 

“transformation story” proposes that the power of mediation is to be 

found in its ability to transform not only the moral character and capacity 

of the disputants but also of the wider society in which they live. 

While none of these four stories can be regarded as definitively 

true, Bush and Folger contend that the satisfaction story is the most 

accurate: the dominant form of practice in mediation does indeed revolve 

around the solving of problems and the gaining of settlements, as 

opposed to oppression, empowerment or transformation of individuals. 

At the same time, Bush and Folger would like to place a greater emphasis 

on transformative mediation, pointing to its significant potential for 

engendering the personal development of disputants toward both greater 

strength and greater compassion. Consequently, mediation offers the 

capacity for both empowerment (the restoration of an individual’s own 

sense of value and capacity) and recognition (the individual’s 

acknowledgement and empathy for the other party’s problems). 

Individual changes of this nature are seen as an expression of a new 

moral and social vision, in which society comes to value relations 

between people rather than individual satisfaction. The social justice 

story thus offers striking parallels to the conflict transformation as 

described above. 

Page 5

Fisher 

Mediation in international relations also has a long history and, 

parallel to the development of the nation-state system, has become 

increasingly employed. Diplomatic practitioners have come to consider 

mediation as part of their stock-in-trade, and some of the early works on 

the practice are powerful testimonials to their personal experience and 

wisdom. In this sphere, international mediation is often performed by a 

formal representative of a state, regional organization, or the United 

Nations, with the latter two coming to predominate in the second half of 

the twentieth century. At the same time, informal interventions by 

esteemed persons and religious intermediaries have come to be of 

increasing importance in international mediation. The current work of 

former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, and the quiet unofficial diplomacy of 

the Quakers serve as illustrations. 

The practice of international mediation in the political sphere is 

increasingly complemented by the intermediary activities of numerous 

actors at the mid- and grassroots levels in societies experiencing violent 

conflict. While their efforts have not been well documented, it is clear that 

mid-level officials, personnel of non-governmental organizations, and 

military officers on peacekeeping missions, among others, take part in a 

wide variety of intermediary activities. As they work in war zones or in 

areas undergoing reconstruction or other forms of societal 

transformation, these individuals make use of their organizational roles in 

order to bring about cooperation and problem-solving between 

representatives of antagonistic factions who continue to regard one 

another as the enemy. 

In addition to negotiating the many arrangements necessary to 

achieve mission or organizational objectives, these practitioners often 

find that they must mediate among various parties in order to meet their 

mandate, whether that be the maintaining of a ceasefire, the provision of 

humanitarian assistance to displaced persons, or the dispensing of health 

care to vulnerable populations. Current manifestations of ethnopolitical 

conflict and the international community’s response to these have thus 

raised further challenges for the theory and practice of mediation as a 

form of third-party intervention. 

II.2 Identity and Motives 

Third parties need to think carefully about who they are and 

precisely which attributes and interests they bring to the triadic 

bargaining situation. Mediators are distinguished by not having the same 

identity as either of the parties, nor has any direct interest in the dispute; 

were this so, the mediator would be party to it. This is not to say that 

mediators are disinterested, or that they have no tangible interests to be 

served by entering the domain of the conflict. States, for example, often 

enter into mediation of third-party conflicts in order to advance their own

security or economic interests, to maintain or increase their sphere of 

influence or to help keep an alliance together. As Christopher Mitchell 

(1988) points out, the motives for mediation are quite diverse and thus 

cannot be taken for granted. Motivations operate at both the individual 

(e.g., altruism, ego-enhancement, material gain) and the institutional 

level (e.g., the role of the UN, the prestige of a state). In all cases, the 

mediator receives some benefit from his or her assumption of the role, 

either through the process (e.g., improved status) or in the outcomes 

(e.g., advancement of security interests). 

Consideration of the full range of social situations that lend 

themselves to mediation will readily show that the identity of the 

mediator can vary considerably in relation to the both the parties and the 

context. Christopher Moore (1996) provides a useful taxonomy of this 

variety by identifying three types of mediators. Social network mediators 

are linked to the disputants by means of a continuous web of 

connections, which usually means that they will have some form of 

obligation to foster and maintain harmonious relationships. Examples of 

this include community elders, religious figures, business colleagues, and 

personal friends. The authoritative mediator has a formal relationship 

with the parties and also some degree of power over them, but does not 

make use of this to determine the outcome. Examples here include 

corporate managers, organizational supervisors, agency officials, and 

representatives of powerful states in the international community. 

Independent mediators can be found within those traditions of 

professional service that are designed to provide objective consultation 

to disputing parties, such as labor-management mediators, family 

mediators, and third parties in complex environmental disputes. While all 

of these mediators require some of the same core attributes and 

competencies, they also need expertise in their particular domain of 

operation. 

With regard to the specific motives of the parties entering 

mediation, the common hope is that they do so simply because they wish 

to resolve the conflict and have become frustrated if not stalemated in 

their own unilateral and bilateral attempts. Unfortunately, observers 

cannot always assume such constructive motives, as parties commonly 

enter into mediation for a number of other reasons. Frequently, it may 

prove difficult to refuse the invitation of a powerful mediator; such a 

rejection could reflect badly on credibility or image. Parties may then 

enter into mediation in order to stall for time while they develop new 

capacities to pursue alternative strategies, or they may simply try to 

(mis)use mediation as a means to advance their own unilateral interests, 

with no intention of compromise or joint problem-solving. Thus, one of 

the first and continuing tasks of a mediator is to accurately assess the 

motives of the parties as well as the authenticity of their desire to reach a 

mutually acceptable settlement. 

Page 7

Fisher 

II.3 Qualities and Competencies 

One essential quality closely linked to identity is that of 

mediator impartiality; this attribute finds its expression in the attitudes 

and behaviors exhibited by the mediator toward the parties in the 

mediation process. The issue of impartial versus biased third parties is 

discussed in greater detail below. Suffice it to say here that some amount 

of impartiality is almost always expected of any mediator: in the sense 

that he or she may not favor one party over the other and must be neutral 

about the outcomes that they may jointly create. The identity of the 

mediator should serve to engender trust on the part of the parties; 

indeed, in many cases, the mediating third-party is often the only initial 

repository of trust between antagonists who harbor only suspicion for 

one another. 

Beyond such fundamental attributes, third parties require the 

requisite knowledge and skill to properly fulfill their role. In the case of 

mediation, this means a thorough understanding of the parties, the 

substantive issues that divide them, the negotiation process itself, and 

the wider system in which it is embedded. Consequently, the competency 

for mediation depends first of all on a demonstrated capacity to facilitate 

the negotiation process. The list of specific behavioral skills or tactics that 

this requires is extensive and usually not a matter of consensual 

agreement. Suggestions range from empathetic listening to the 

manipulation of information, the ability to quickly draft text, and, last but 

not least, a sense of humor. 

An attempt has been made by Christopher Honeyman (1993) 

and his colleagues at the domestic level in the United States to gain a 

synthesized set of mediator competencies applicable to the areas of 

labor-management, community, commercial, and family mediation. This 

ambitious project identifies the primary tasks of the mediator (e.g., to 

enable communication, to analyze information, to facilitate agreement), 

each with its own set of subtasks, as well as the skills required to perform 

these tasks (e.g., reasoning, nonverbal communication, recognizing 

values). The model then develops performance evaluation criteria with 

rating scales to judge mediator competency (e.g., empathy, skill in 

generating options, success in managing the interaction). Overall, it can 

be said that Western approaches to mediation tend to emphasize 

communication skills and the demonstrated capacity to facilitate joint 

problem-solving between the parties. 

Another popular typology of mediator functions or roles, 

proposed by Saadia Touval and William Zartman (1985), divides mediator 

behavior into the categories of communication (i.e. transmitting 

concessions), formulation (i.e., redefining issues), and manipulation (i.e. 

legitimizing a party’s demands). While communication and formulation 

are consistent with a traditional, impartial and basically altruistic

approach to mediation, evidence of manipulation can raise questions 

about mediator bias and power, issues which are further discussed 

below. By and large, the mediator will require all the requisite skills to 

help move the parties through the negotiation process, from initial 

contact and pre-negotiation to defining issues and identifying interests to 

generating alternatives to exchanging preferences and concessions to 

integrating alternatives to persuading parties toward an agreement, and 

finally to working out the details of implementation. 

II.4 Assessing Effectiveness 

At the international level, mediation has for centuries been an 

integral part of the standard practice of diplomacy, although its 

effectiveness has only recently become the object of scientific study. In 

the domestic arena, traditional forms of mediation have existed for a long 

time, but most research attention has been directed to newer forms of 

mediation that have developed alongside existing legal practices for 

settling disputes. There has been a concerted effort to assess these 

alternate forms of dispute resolution, and especially their claim to have 

certain superior qualities as compared to established court procedures. 

A wide variety of indicators have been employed in order to 

evaluate the effectiveness of mediation in a range of situations, from 

victim offender reconciliation, to divorce mediation, to small claims court, 

to neighborhood disputes, to landlord-tenant conflict, and to 

environmental and public policy controversies. Kenneth Kressel and Dean 

Pruitt (1989) provide a comprehensive list of the types of indicators that 

have been used to evaluate the success of mediation. In terms of 

outcomes, rates of settlement are an obvious indicator, while rates of 

compliance with agreements and disputant satisfaction with the 

settlement are also important considerations. In addition, the nature of 

the agreement is always of interest, as mediation often claims to produce 

a greater degree of compromise and equal sharing of resources than 

adjudicated procedures. 

One might add that it is also important to look at the integrative 

nature of agreements, that is, the degree to which “win-win” rather than 

“win-lose” or “lose-lose” outcomes are produced. Kressel and Pruitt also 

note the importance not only of the effectiveness of mediation, but also 

of its efficiency. Indicators illustrating this criterion include the speed of 

the settlement process, the cost of the procedures employed, and the 

savings that accrue from the avoidance of expensive court fees as well as 

the costs of other legal services. Finally, they point to the postdispute 

climate and the longer-term relationship of the disputants as yet another 

place to look in assessing overall mediator effectiveness. A general 

comment on the effectiveness of mediation in the context of third-party 

intervention will be provided below. 

Page 9

Fisher 

III. Forms of Third-Party Intervention 

III.1 A Taxonomy of Methods 

Mediation may be the most common form of third-party 

intervention, but it is in theory and practice usually augmented by a 

number of other methods. Numerous terms abound in the third-party 

literature: conciliation, fact-finding, good offices, peer mediation, 

arbitration, facilitation, adjudication, mediation-arbitration, policy 

dialogue, and consensus building. The fact that third parties operate at 

many levels and in many different sectors within and between societies 

simply adds to the complexity and the confusion. Some of these roles 

involve interveners in their official capacity, while others are performed in 

a more informal manner. Some interventions operate at the highest levels 

of decision-making (macro), while others depend on influence given at 

the middle (meso) ranges of society, while yet others typically work at the 

community or grassroots (micro) level. 

In the global domain, third-party activities can be included in a 

wider conception of multi-track diplomacy, as laid out by John McDonald 

and Louise Diamond. This work builds on Joseph Montville’s original 

distinction between Track I and Track II diplomacy, with the former 

defined as traditional diplomatic activities and the latter described as 

unofficial, unstructured interactions between adversarial groups or 

nations directed toward conflict resolution. Diamond and McDonald 

(1996) propose nine tracks of peacemaking and peacebuilding, starting 

with Tracks I and II as proposed by Montville. To these they add several 

further tracks that work within various sectors of global society to 

promote peace. Track IV, for example, describes the efforts of private 

citizens in unofficial capacities as they engage in mediation activities 

such as informal mediation, exchange programs, and work for nongovernmental 

organizations. Track VII outlines the role of religion in 

peacemaking on the part of religious communities and movements such 

as pacifism and non-violence. Most of these broad tracks will involve a 

variety of unofficial actors as they engage in intermediary activities of 

various kinds. 

More modestly, Loraleigh Keashly and myself surveyed 

the third-party literature some years ago, and in that process developed 

an initial taxonomy of the primary methods of intervention (Fisher and 

Keashly 1990). Our goal was to bring some clarity to the confused state in 

which the same term had been used to mean very different things, while 

at the same time different terms were employed to describe what was 

basically the same activity. We also sought to react to the blurring of the 

lines in the literature between traditional mediation and the newer forms 

of third-party intervention, which focused more on the subjective 

elements of conflict (misperceptions, basic needs) and on the quality of 

the relationship between the antagonists. Our concern was that a lack of

distinction could easily result in a devaluing of the appropriateness and 

utility of methods such as dialogue facilitation and problem-solving 

workshops, which attempt to build understanding and trust, rather than 

the mere hammering out of agreements. This work produced a six-fold 

typology of pacific interventions, geared mainly to the international level, 

but appropriate at other levels as well: 

1. Conciliation, in which a trusted third-party provides an informal 

communicative link between the antagonists for the purposes 

of identifying the issues, lowering tension and encouraging 

direct interaction, usually in the form of negotiation. 

2. Consultation, in which the third-party works to facilitate creative 

problem-solving through communication and analysis, making 

use of human relations skills and social-scientific 

understanding of conflict etiology and dynamics. 

3. Pure Mediation, in which the third-party works to facilitate a 

negotiated settlement on substantive issues through the use of 

reasoning, persuasion, effective control of information, and the 

suggestion of alternatives. 

4. Power Mediation, which encompasses pure mediation but also 

moves beyond it to include the use of leverage or coercion on 

the part of the mediator in the form of promised rewards or 

threatened punishments, and may also involve the third-party 

as monitor and guarantor of the agreement. 

5. Arbitration, wherein the third-party renders a binding judgment 

arrived at through consideration of the individual merits of the 

opposing positions and then imposes a settlement which is 

deemed to be fair and just. 

6. Peacekeeping, in which the third-party provides military personnel in 

order to monitor a ceasefire or an agreement between 

antagonists, and may also engage in humanitarian activities 

designed to restore normalcy in concert with civilian personnel, 

who may also assist in the management of political decisionmaking 

processes such as elections. 

In this taxonomy, consultation is roughly equivalent to Track II 

in Diamond and McDonald’s model, wherein a skilled professional 

operates in an unofficial capacity to analyze, prevent, and resolve 

conflicts. While their focus is primarily on the international level, I have 

noted that third-party consultation can also find definition and expression 

at the interpersonal and intergroup levels of interaction (Fisher 1972, 

1983). The utility of consultation, with its focus on the proper diagnosis of 

and improvement in relationships, lies in the very useful complementary 

role that it can play to mediation, especially in the pre-negotiation stage. 

Here misunderstandings are cleared up, emotional issues are separated 

Page 11

Fisher 

from substantive ones, and a sense of working trust is built which the 

parties can then take into negotiations. 

At the domestic level, some forms of relationship-orientated 

mediation provide for this type of focus and interaction, especially as 

compared to a settlement-oriented approach. At the international level, 

as well as in some intergroup work, such as in the labor-management 

arena, mediation has all too often been characterized by a general 

neglect of emotional and attitudinal factors, viewing these only as 

difficulties to be worked around. It seems clear, then, that some 

combination of consultation and mediation may be the most effective way 

of implementing a more comprehensive process of conflict resolution. 

III.2 A Contingency Approach to Intervention 

The realization that third-party methods can be employed in a 

variety of combinations or sequences led Loraleigh Keashly and myself to 

think further about how they might best be matched to key aspects of the 

particular conflict situation. We started with the recognition that conflicts 

are inherently a mixture of objective interests (e.g., competition over 

scarce resources such as territory) and subjective elements (such as 

perceptions, attitudes, valuing of goals). We were aware that as conflicts 

escalate or become more intense, the subjective aspects usually come to 

play an increasing role; eventually, individuals or groups engaged in truly 

destructive conflict will genuinely come to see two different realities and 

hold extreme negative images of one another, while at the same time 

unquestionably maintaining a positive self-image. 

These factors typically make the management of tangible 

interests much more difficult for third parties such as mediators, and 

obstruct their attempts to move the parties toward settlement. To help, 

we developed a contingency model of third-party intervention, drawing 

on the earlier work of a few others in the field, particularly that of 

Friedrich Glasl (1982) and Hugo Prein (1984) at the organizational level. 

Our model proposes to match the lead or initial third-party intervention 

undertaken to the stage of conflict escalation, i.e. to the particular mix of 

objective and subjective factors. (Fisher and Keashly 1991; Keashly and 

Fisher 1996). We surmised that, properly structured, lead interventions 

would achieve initial effects, and could then be followed by further 

interventions designed to de-escalate the conflict to the point at which 

the parties could manage it themselves. 

We first developed a stage model of conflict escalation which 

captures many of the objective and subjective elements that prove to be 

important as the conflict intensifies, as the parties apply more powerful 

and contentious measures and as the difference between winning and 

losing becomes greater. Building on the work of other theoreticians, we

put forward a four-stage model of escalation: 1) discussion, 2) polarization, 

3) segregation, and 4) destruction. 

During the first stage of discussion, the parties usually maintain 

a respectful relationship with one another and are jointly concerned with 

achieving joint gain on objective interests. They are also hesitant to move 

into negotiations, however, so that the third-party intervention of 

conciliation is appropriate. This type of intervention can deal effectively 

with minor perceptual and emotional issues, and move the parties into 

negotiations to manage their differences. 

At stage two, polarization, when the relationship is beginning to 

deteriorate and negative perceptions (stereotypes) and emotions 

(hostility) emerge, consultation is seen as the lead intervention. If this 

kind of intervention manages to help clear up the misperceptions and 

misunderstandings, and to defuse the emerging emotional negativity, the 

parties can then be encouraged to enter into pure mediation in order to 

reach an agreement. 

At stage three, segregation, subjective elements predominate, 

with high levels of mistrust and disrespect, limited direct communication, 

the use of threats, and increased use of “good versus evil” images. At this 

stage, the model proposes that stronger medicine in the form of 

arbitration (if available) or power mediation may be required to control 

the hostility of the parties and reduce the negative effects that it is having 

on the relationship. It is clear, however, that the imposition of a 

temporary settlement or ceasefire at this stage of the proceeding does 

little more than provide the opportunity to then begin serious work on the 

relationship, using consultation. If improvements do indeed ensue, the 

parties may again be encouraged to employ pure mediation in order to 

broaden and finish the settlement process. 

Stage four, destruction, presents the greatest challenge for 

third-party interveners, since the parties in conflict basically see each 

other as “subhuman” and regard the situation in which they find 

themselves as hopeless, to the point that they are willing to settle for 

losing less than the other if they cannot win. At this stage, parties often 

see their very survival at stake, whether that means job loss, physical 

abuse to the point of murder, or even the attempted annihilation of an 

identity group as in genocide. Our model now prescribes some form of 

peacekeeping to separate the parties, and to provide an opportunity for 

other methods to work. Again, some form of arbitration or power 

mediation may be useful for the initial control of hostility and aggression. 

But this will not suffice: now a deeper form of consultation in the form of 

intense and prolonged conflict analysis may be necessary to induce the 

parties back down the escalation staircase, now littered with resentments 

over past actions. This is where consultation must encourage 

Page 13

Fisher 

reconciliation, and help the parties to gain a shared picture of how they 

arrived at such a point of intractability. 

What the contingency model proposes are methods to increase 

the level and to expand the types of power available to the third-party 

interveners, in parallel to the parties’ actions to escalate influence. 

(Fisher and Keashly 1990). Stronger investments, commitments and 

tactics by the parties to the conflict may in turn require stronger and 

broader forms of influence by the third-party intervener, in order to 

induce the parties to fundamentally reconsider their approach to the 

conflict. 

Different forms of interventions find their legitimacy in different 

types of power, and need to be evaluated in terms of both their 

effectiveness and their ethical acceptability. Conciliation, consultation, 

and pure mediation tend to exert lower levels of control over both 

process and outcome, and also to rely more on referent (professional) 

and expert (knowledge) power that is shared (“power with”). Arbitration, 

power mediation and peacekeeping are characterized by a higher level of 

control over both process and outcome, and inject more legitimate (role), 

reward and coercive power into the situation (“power over”). Thus, the 

mixing and sequencing of these various methods raises a range of ethical 

and moral implications that call for careful and continuous review. 

The contingency model challenges third parties to always 

consider carefully the approach they are proposing to implement, and to 

carry out a detailed analysis of the conflict before assuming that their 

method is the most appropriate and useful at that point in time. The 

intention here is not to rule out simultaneous applications of different 

methods, which can play a useful ongoing role ,(for example, that of 

parallel consultation during mediation.) Rather, it is to encourage more 

traditional interveners to examine whether their methods are indeed 

adequate to meet the specific demands that subjectivity and complexity 

bring to escalated and destructive conflicts regardless of the level of 

interaction. A lead analysis using a consultative approach may often be 

the best way to start such a series of interventions, assuming that the 

parties are amenable to this form of interaction. Case experience 

indicates that parties are often willing to enter into informal, low risk 

discussions before they are prepared to negotiate. 

A further analysis provided by Louis Kriesberg (1996) goes 

beyond the contingency model to link mediator activities or functions at 

the international level to the appropriate stage of conflict expression: 

from preparing to de-escalate, to initiating negotiations, to conducting 

negotiations, and finally to implementing agreements. In addition to 

discussing such activities, Kriesberg identifies three forms of mediation, 

based on the identity of the intervener: formal mediators, informal third

parties, and quasi-mediators, who are members of one party but also 

carry out important mediating functions. 

The analysis then identifies potential opportunities for the three 

roles to make the same and different contributions to the conflict 

resolution process. Some activities, such as selecting the parties to be 

invited to negotiations, can only be carried out by a formal mediator. And 

some – for example, adding resources for settlement – can only be 

implemented by powerful formal mediators. Others, such as reframing 

the conflict, are best carried out by informal third parties in the earlier 

stages of the conflict through interventions along the lines of problemsolving 

workshops. Finally, some activities prove to be most effective 

when implemented by quasi-mediators building trust and credibility 

during the negotiation process. 

Kriesberg thus brings more complex analysis to contingency 

thinking, and this may have applicability to levels of analysis other than 

the international. As further theorizing is supported by case studies and 

other forms of empirical evidence, a more comprehensive picture is likely 

to emerge, and we will be better equipped to fully answer the question as 

to how third-party interventions can appropriately be matched to key 

elements and stages of specific conflicts. 

Kriesberg’s analysis also is cognizant of the levels of society 

that interventions are directed toward, partly by maintaining the official 

and unofficial distinctions among the various methods. In a similar vein, 

John Paul Lederach (1997) has put forward a model encompassing the 

various actors, as well as the different approaches to peacebuilding, as 

they are linked to the different levels in the two contending societies. 

Official approaches typically take place at the top leadership 

level in the political, military and religious domains, with a high degree of 

visibility. These activities usually involve negotiations that are mediated 

by a highly visible mediator, typically an eminent figure backed by a 

government or international organization. Third party interventions at this 

level would typically be those of conciliation, pure and power mediation, 

arbitration, and peacekeeping, as identified in the contingency model. 

These approaches generally fall under the rubric of “Track I Diplomacy”, 

although more recent work involving official actors in innovative, 

“unofficial” processes, such as dialogue or roundtables, has led to the 

coining of the term “Track One and a Half”. 

At the mid-range leadership levels, individuals from a variety of 

sectors can serve as influentials and interveners in the conflict process. 

These can include academics and intellectuals, writers and journalists, 

ethnic and religious leaders, and leaders of non-governmental 

organizations. While these individuals and their associations do not hold 

formal power, they are nevertheless influential through the use of softer 

Page 15

Fisher 

forms of power, and are important links between the high-level 

leadership and the wider society. Approaches appropriate to this level 

include problem-solving workshops (interactive conflict resolution), 

training in conflict resolution, and bodies that deal with peace and 

reconciliation. In the language of the contingency model, much work can 

be done at this level using conciliation, pure mediation and third-party 

consultation in the form of dialogue and conflict analysis among mid-level 

leaders. 

At the grassroots level of society, local leaders work as 

community developers, local officials in the human services, refugee 

camp officials, and administrators of non-governmental organizations. 

These people represent and are in touch with the masses of society who 

are directly affected by the conflict dynamics. They usually operate on a 

day-to-day basis, and are primarily concerned with practical matters of 

survival and quality of life. Appropriate approaches at this level engage 

leaders and others in peacebuilding activities, the effects of which can 

filter up to higher levels as well. Local peace commissions, programs in 

prejudice reduction, training in conflict resolution and psychosocial work 

in trauma reduction are all useful activities in this sphere. 

In terms of the contingency model, grassroots forms of thirdparty 

consultation can engage individuals from conflicting parties, while 

development aid and the related humanitarian work that fosters joint 

cooperative projects can help to build peace from the bottom-up. There is 

also much need for mediation, as peacekeepers, aid workers and others 

attempt to deal with the many local and regional disputes that arise and 

that must be resolved if the work of peacebuilding is to be successful. 

Thus, there are many possibilities in both theory and practice for linking 

third-party interventions to the hierarchical reality that is evident in most 

organized societies and reflected in the conflicts between them. 

Contingency thinking also challenges us to view third-party 

activities in the wider context of peace and conflict transformation. 

Conciliation, mediation (pure or power), and arbitration would usually be 

seen as within the domain of peacemaking. While they do vary in the 

degree of legitimacy and power which the third-party brings to the 

discussion, these methods all aim primarily to achieve a political 

settlement on the substantive issues of the dispute. 

Consultation, on the other hand, is best conceived within the 

domain of peacebuilding. The original conception of peacebuilding 

encompassed changing the political and economic systems of a society 

so as to reduce or eliminate the structural inequalities that are seen to 

cause open violence among different groups. More recently, a social 

dimension has been added to peacebuilding, in the sense that a variety of 

interactions among antagonists can be initiated to build or rebuild a 

cooperative relationship involving understanding, trust and cooperation.

Thus both the structural and the social streams of peacebuilding are 

important to create peaceful relations based on equity, respect and 

justice. 

Within the peacebuilding context, third-party consultation can 

be further expanded to become a broader method of interactive conflict 

resolution, involving all manner of facilitated face-to-face activities 

designed to promote collaborative conflict analysis and joint problemsolving 

among antagonists in ways that address basic needs and build 

peace and justice (Fisher 1997). Such a broader form of intervention can 

take on a variety of forms: facilitation of dialogue between adversaries, 

joint training in conflict resolution skills, and conflict analysis workshops 

for influentials and other representatives of the parties are just a few 

examples. 

Interactive conflict resolution is best carried out by unofficial 

third parties who bring with them the requisite knowledge and skills to 

support consultation and other forms of intensive human interaction. 

Interactive conflict resolution can also be highly complementary and 

supportive of official activities in peacemaking, so that the peace process 

involves more than simply achieving a settlement. Thus, while they do not 

deal directly with the structural aspects of a conflict, these forms of 

intervention are highly supportive of movement toward conflict 

transformation, and clearly move the parties beyond mere conflict 

management. In particular, interactive methods lend themselves well 

toward reconciliation among adversaries, so that the gains of 

peacemaking are not lost through poor implementation or stolen by 

recurring waves of retribution. When the gains of peacebuilding are both 

structural and social, the future of harmonious and equitable relations 

are far more likely to ensue. 

IV. Issues in Third-Party Intervention 

Intervention in other people’s conflicts is fraught with a variety 

of political and pragmatic issues. What follows will illustrate six questions 

and problems that can arise in the context of conflict intervention by 

external actors. While most of these issues have so far been discussed 

largely in relation to mediation, they are certainly applicable to other 

forms of intervention as well. Of these, the first three issues are seen as 

more political in nature, as they relate to the relations between the 

parties and between them and the third-party, with a specific concern 

regarding the use and abuse of power. The last three issues are more 

pragmatic; these have to do with the strategies, outcomes and 

professional ethics of intervention. 

Page 17

Fisher 

IV.1 Culture 

In many cases of intervention, the third-party comes from a 

different (and often dominant) culture from that of the parties, who are 

often themselves from different cultures (often a mix of dominant and 

oppressed). Culture is a pervasive force in human affairs, with an often 

profoundly misunderstood or underestimated power to affect behavior. 

As each culture has its own assumptions, beliefs, norms, practices and 

institutions that seem appropriate to life in general, each also has a 

similar set of fundamentals that are seen as relevant to conflict. As Mark 

Ross (1993) and others have pointed out, the way in which conflict is 

defined, perceived, responded to, and managed is culturally embedded; 

that is, there is a “culture of conflict” in each society. Clearly, when 

cultural assumptions about conflict differ between antagonistic groups, 

these differences can become another source of conflict etiology or 

escalation. 

The question is therefore how third parties are to gain crosscultural 

sensitivity. How can they come to know their own culture, to 

understand and respect the cultures they enter, as well as to accurately 

perceive the effects of cultural differences between the parties, and 

between themselves and each party? The latter is particularly important 

when the third-party comes from a dominant culture and the parties from 

less dominant or even oppressed cultures. The current power imbalances 

in the world determine that many current interveners will come from the 

dominant, affluent Western culture (the North), while many interventions 

occur in non-Western environments (the South). As a result, interveners 

must be extremely careful about transporting their own cultural models of 

conflict intervention to other places and other peoples. 

Kevin Avruch and Peter Black (1993) have proposed that the 

first step in a successful intervention should be to carry out a cultural 

analysis of the conflict, one which goes beyond one’s own cultural 

identity, seeking instead to ascertain the particular cultural dimensions of 

the conflict and to assess their relevance to its expression and potential 

resolution. Adding cultural analysis to the usual historical, political, 

strategic and social analyses that third parties traditionally carry out 

promises to provide a richer, firmer and more respectful base from which 

to work. 

IV.2 Power Asymmetries 

In all third-party interventions, sensitivity to power dynamics is 

critical to understanding and effectiveness. The question is how power 

imbalances between the parties, and between the third-party and one or 

more of the parties affect both process and outcomes.

Usually some degree of power balance is necessary before 

third-party interventions can operate effectively (Fisher 1972). Each party 

must be in a position to seriously confront the other, either in the present 

or in the future, so that constructive interaction can ensue. Sadly, 

however, dominant groups or individuals are not noted for their capacity 

to cede power without challenge; they are better known for abusing 

power in the absence of institutional controls. 

Outside parties often play a useful role in advocating for weaker 

parties, and third parties also serve a preventive function by facilitating 

dialogue, and building understanding, trust and respect, so that conflict 

expression at the point of confrontation takes less violent forms. Without 

some degree of power parity, however, the intervention process can 

easily become a sham, in which the stronger party influences the 

interaction for its own benefit, while the fundamental issues remain 

unaddressed. Within some range, third parties can work to balance 

situational power, and indeed will often support weaker parties through 

activities like training and advice, thus enabling them to be more effective 

players. In short, however, even in facilitative processes, as pointed out 

by Nadim Rouhana and Susan Korper (1997), interveners need to be 

cognizant of how power asymmetries can affect the goals of the 

intervention and the level of conflict analysis on which action implications 

are based. 

A question arises in this context about the coercive use of 

rewards and punishments, as used for example in power mediation. In 

some cases of protracted and escalated conflict, power mediation may 

well have a useful role to play in bringing about an initial settlement in 

the face of continuing hostility. It remains true, however, that the use of 

coercive power fundamentally contradicts the values of autonomy and 

free choice which should govern the field of conflict resolution Thus, 

powerful individuals or institutions with access to resources of value to 

the conflicting parties must be sensitive to their pervasive effects. When 

combined with a lack of cultural sensitivity, the higher power of the 

intervener can easily lead to the importation of dominant methods or 

directed solutions. As Vivienne Jabri (1995) maintains, third parties of 

either a directive or facilitative bent should strive to understand their 

interventions as actions situated within the structures of existing social 

systems, with the potential to contribute either to their maintenance or to 

their transformation. 

IV.3. Third-Party Bias 

The received view on third-party bias is that the third-party 

should be impartial, without favoring one party over the other, neutral, 

and not determining outcomes one way or the other. Impartiality is seen 

as one of the main requirements of acceptability by the parties, and as a 

Page 19

Fisher 

prerequisite to establishing a relationship of trust. It serves as the basis 

for effectively carrying out the role of intervener. 

More recently, the question has been raised whether mediators 

who are biased towards one party or the other can also play a useful role 

in conflict management. Saadia Touval and William Zartman (1989) argue, 

for example, that the motives of the mediator are best described in the 

context of power politics, and that mediators almost always have their 

own interests, so that they are very seldom truly indifferent to the issues 

and terms being negotiated. 

From the parties’ perspective, impartiality of the mediator may 

be less important than the achievement of a favorable outcome and the 

importance of a continuing relationship with a powerful mediator. The 

more distant party may accept a biased mediator precisely because they 

believe the third-party will have greater influence over the preferred party 

in terms of moving them toward settlement. This analysis has been 

developed primarily at the international level, and its utility at other 

levels of intervention remains to be seen. However, these considerations 

do lend a more complex and strategic cast to the question of mediator 

impartiality. If biased mediators with political agendas and tangible 

interests in the dispute can be effective, the range of mediation 

possibilities is broadened. However, this approach compromises the 

voluntary, non-coercive nature of mediation, which is compatible with the 

value base of the conflict resolution field. 

IV.4 Timing and Ripeness in Mediation 

In terms of timing, it appears that intervention in bilateral or 

multilateral disputes is likely to occur only after some period of 

development and escalation has elapsed. Sadly, mediation efforts are 

typically initiated only after the parties’ attempts have failed and coercion 

or violence has already taken place, thus presenting the mediator with a 

situation in which significant costs have been incurred, and positions and 

attitudes have become hardened. 

When might the most propitious moment(s) of intervention be? 

Consideration of this has led to the concept of “ripeness”, which refers 

both to a condition of the conflict and to the right time for intervention. 

William Zartman (1985) has posited the concepts of a “ripe moment” and 

a “hurting stalemate”, referring primarily to international conflict. From a 

realist perspective, Zartman argued that parties are likely to consider 

outside intervention only after they have exhausted themselves to the 

point of a costly deadlock from which they see no exit. In addition, if the 

parties perceive that their situation will only get worse, especially if they 

experience a recently avoided or an impending catastrophe, then they will 

be receptive to intervention. A mutual sense of futility in dealing with the

conflict must be combined with a belief that a conciliatory move will be 

reciprocated by the other party. The parties must come to believe that 

mediation can bring about a way out of the conflict through a negotiated 

solution. 

Zartman’s analysis is a sobering one in that it makes clear the 

high costs of destructive conflict, and is supported by some evidence that 

international mediation is likely to be more effective at later rather than 

earlier stages of conflict escalation. At the same time, there also seems to 

be a point of hostility after which conflicts persist to the point of 

intractability. Therefore, it may well prove counterproductive (as well as 

morally unacceptable) to wait for a “hurting stalemate” and catastrophe. 

Indeed, the late Jeffrey Rubin (1991) has maintained that there are many 

“ripe moments” for intervention in destructive conflicts. Rather than 

viewing timing as a trap, and waiting for hurting stalemates and 

impending catastrophes, third parties should rather look for ways to 

create ripeness, regardless of the stage of the conflict. This position is 

compatible with interactive conflict resolution and the contingency 

model, both of which maintain that any form of facilitated intervention is 

almost always more useful than inactivity 

IV.5 Effectiveness of Third Party Intervention 

Although third parties can play useful roles in a wide range of 

conflicts at various levels of human society, it is clear that they are not 

always successful in doing so. While the question of effectiveness is 

complex, attempts to evaluate third-party activities have been made in 

most sectors and with most forms of intervention. These evaluations use 

a variety of indicators, from settlement rates, to satisfaction of the 

parties, to attitudinal and relationship changes, to perceived fairness of 

the solution, and to compliance with the agreement (see for example, 

Kressel and Pruitt, 1989; Kressel, 2000). 

Such evaluations of effectiveness must first consider the 

differing objectives of the various forms of intervention. For example, 

third-party consultation is not designed to produce agreements on 

substantive issues, whereas mediation is, and should rightly be assessed 

on that basis. In contrast, most forms of mediation are not designed to 

transform the relationship between the parties, whereas consultation is 

directed to attitude change and relationship improvement that will 

support cooperative interaction and conflict transformation. Thus, it is 

essential to identify the dependent variables that are the expected 

outcomes of a specific form of intervention, and to tailor the evaluation of 

effectiveness to these. One should not criticize mediation because the 

underlying attitudes of the parties remain unchanged, or consultation 

because it does not lead directly to the settlement of the dispute. 

Page 21

Fisher 

Most forms of mediation in domestic settings, at least in North 

America, enjoy reasonable rates of success, usually above fifty per cent in 

terms of settlement rates. Overall satisfaction with mediation and 

compliance with agreements are also moderately high in absolute terms, 

as well as in comparison to traditional methods of management. The 

overall sense is that mediation works, and that it is usually well-received 

and cost-effective in comparison with authoritative and adversarial 

alternatives, such as litigation in the court system. 

At the international level, however, studies of mediation 

effectiveness in achieving settlements show far more mixed results, with 

settlement rates varying from around ten to approximately fifty percent, 

depending on the measure of success used and the cases of intervention 

studied. Sadly, mediation success in protracted civil wars of an 

ethnopolitical nature is especially low, in the order of ten to twenty 

percent. Here, there appears to be a level of intractability associated with 

identity conflicts that have escalated to widespread violence, which is 

particularly resistant to intervention efforts. 

The practice of third-party consultation is much less developed 

and less frequently employed than is mediation in intercommunal or 

international disputes. Nonetheless, my recent review of three decades of 

unofficial third-party interventions yielded generally positive results, at 

least according to the case analyses of the interveners (Fisher 1997). An 

assessment of the outcomes of a variety of problem-solving workshops 

and similar interventions shows evidence that the vast majority do indeed 

make a positive contribution to conflict resolution. Specifically, fifty-eight 

percent were seen as having a positive influence on or making a tangible 

contribution to the wider peace process, while twenty-six percent made 

tangible contributions to negotiations in terms of analyses, formulations, 

or frameworks. These initial results support the expanded use of 

interactive conflict resolution both in its own right and as a 

complementary activity to official peacemaking. 

IV.6 The Ethics of Intervention 

The question of the ethics of intervention at both the individual 

and institutional levels is both a political and a practical matter. At its 

root, it involves the way in which moral and ethical principles are 

translated into guidelines for practice and from there into assurances to 

be provided to those affected by one's work. Ethics is not simply a matter 

of do’s and don’ts; it is impossible to formulate simple prescriptions 

which will govern all situations. Rather, it is best understood as an 

ingrained part of the identity of individuals and organizations. Those who 

presume to intervene in the lives of others, especially in critical situations 

of conflict, need to consider very consciously the moral and ethical 

consequences of their actions. As with the law, ignorance is no excuse.

It is essential that conflict intervention, especially at the level of 

collectivities, be seen as a form of professional practice, with the usual 

requirements placed upon those who set out to practice the profession 

(Fisher 1997). These include sufficient knowledge to allow for an 

understanding of the phenomena encountered (destructive social 

conflict) as well as of the practice undertaken (mediation, consultation, 

etc.), a genuine dedication to human welfare, a commitment to 

continuously improve understanding and competence, and a sense of 

integrity and standards for ethical conduct which will govern interactions 

with those who are served. Conflict interveners who operate in an 

informal and unofficial manner, be it at the grassroots level or at the 

highest political level, must feel impelled to take these considerations as 

seriously as does the international diplomat who mediates interstate 

disputes. 

Most individuals working in conflict resolution as it is currently 

constituted in Western culture come from a professional base that is 

sensitive to ethical considerations, for example, law, social work, and 

psychology. Informal third parties in communal settings are also usually 

aware of the ethical principles that necessarily accompany their role, 

even if these are not systematically codified. Integrity does not require a 

professional stamp for its validity, and neither does ethical conduct 

require a formalized code. However, all who would intervene in the affairs 

of others should be prepared to reveal the base of their competence and 

should at all times operate with high regard for the welfare of their 

clients. 

Authoritative third-party roles have often provided a base for 

unethical conduct that was in the service of the intervening institution 

rather than the individuals or groups receiving the intervention. It must 

be realized that parties in conflict are all too often in a vulnerable state 

when seeking outside assistance, and the classic dictum of “Let the buyer 

beware” is not an adequate assurance. The minimal ethical principle of 

“Do no harm” is also unfortunately an insufficient ethical foundation for 

practice in conflict intervention. 

In terms of ethical functioning from a Western, professional 

base, there are many sources to which conflict resolutionaries can turn 

for guidance. Almost all service professions, including that of 

consultation, have developed ethical codes to guide the practice of their 

members. While these are usually grounded on firm general principles of 

ethical conduct (e.g., honesty, fairness and respect in dealing with 

others), their application is usually geared to the specific situation, in 

which the application of general principles is tailored to the unique 

elements of a given ethical dilemma. 

Page 23

Fisher 

V. Conclusion 

Recently, the field of conflict resolution has shown interest in 

developing codes to cover its unique practice. For example, the U.S.based 

Society of Professionals in Dispute Resolution has issued a 

statement of ethical standards that is relevant to neutral parties 

intervening in disputes. Some international non-governmental 

organizations involved in conflict transformation work have developed 

principles and/or codes of conduct to govern their interventions in 

situations of conflict, which typically take place in the context of other 

societies and cultures. International Alert, for example, has developed an 

extensive code of conduct that provides a set of basic ethical principles 

supplemented by guidelines specifically concerned with human rights, 

impartiality, and working in partnership with others. 

These welcome developments have stirred a valuable debate 

within the field as to the true nature of conflict resolution work, 

particularly as practiced from a dominant Western and Northern base. 

Many issues are relevant, especially revolving around the question of 

whose interests are being served by intervention, the need for cultural 

and gender sensitivity, standards of competency for the practice, as well 

as the needed expansion of culturally aware codes of conduct. These 

useful discussions, which have involved both interveners and recipients, 

can help the field of conflict resolution advance toward serving the needs 

of those whose lives have been ravaged by the scourge of destructive 

conflict. After all, conflict resolution in the short- and longer-term is about 

the work of conflict transformation, not only conflict management. All 

societies can benefit from theory and practice that enables groups who 

are different to live in peaceful partnerships characterized by harmony 

and equality. 

Methods of third-party intervention have found strong 

expression in the field of conflict resolution, and yet there remains 

significant potential for improvement in both theory and practice. It is 

essential to better understand the different forms of intervention and 

their unique strengths in addressing destructive conflict, especially at the 

intergroup level. Only then will it be possible to make the application of 

particular interventions contingent upon certain characteristics of the 

conflict in question, with the possibility of increasing effectiveness by 

sequencing and combining interventions in a complementary fashion. 

In doing so, it is necessary to evaluate the different methods in 

terms of whether each one is geared primarily to peacebuilding and 

conflict transformation or to peacemaking and conflict management. 

While it is indeed valuable to develop generic theory to support of 

practice, it must also be realized that each domain of application (e.g.,

labor-management, commercial, international, victim-offender) will 

require its own theoretical base for understanding and practice. The 

bottom line must always be that effective third-party intervention seeks 

to be an important ingredient of social change aimed at achieving greater 

harmony and equity between individuals and groups, both within and 

between societies. 

Avruch, K. 1998. Culture and Conflict Resolution. Washington, DC: United 

States Institute of Peace. 

Avruch, K. and P. Black. 1993. “Conflict resolution in intercultural 

settings: Problems and prospects”. In Conflict Resolution Theory and 

Practice: Integration and Application, eds. Dennis J., D. Sandole and H. 

van der Merwe. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press: 131-145. 

Bush, R. , A. Baruch and J. P. Folger. 1994. The Promise of Mediation: 

Responding to Conflict Through Empowerment and Recognition. San 

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 

Deutsch, M. and P. T. Coleman, eds. 2000. The Handbook of Conflict 

Resolution: Theory and Practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 

Diamond, L. and J. MacDonald. 1996. Multi-Track Diplomacy: A Systems 

Approach to Peace, Third Edition. West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press. 

Fisher, R. J. 1972. “Third party consultation: A method for the study and 

resolution of conflict.” Journal of Conflict Resolution, 16: 67-94. 

Fisher, R. J. 1983. “Third party consultation as a method of conflict 

resolution: A review of studies.” Journal of Conflict Resolution, 27: 301- 

334. 

Fisher, R. J. 1997. Interactive Conflict Resolution. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse 

University Press. 

Fisher, R. J. and L. Keashly. 1990. “Third party consultation as a method of 

intergroup and international conflict resolution”. In The Social Psychology 

of Intergroup and International Conflict Resolution, R. J. Fisher. New York: 

Springer-Verlag: 211-238. 

Fisher, R. J. and L. Keashly. 1991. “The potential complementarity of 

mediation and consultation within a contingency model of third party 

intervention.” Journal of Peace Research, 28: 29-42. 

VI. References and Further Reading 

Page 25

Fisher 

Glasl, F. 1982. “The process of escalation and the role of third parties”, in 

Conflict Management and Industrial Relations, eds. G.B.J. Bomers and 

R.B. Peterson. Boston, MA: Kluwer-Nijhoff, 119-140. 

Honeyman, C. 1993. “A consensus on mediators’ qualifications”. 

Negotiation Journal, 9: 295-308. 

Jabri, V. 1995. “Agency, structure and the question of power in conflict 

resolution.” Paradigms: The Kent Journal of International Relations, 9: 53- 

70. 

Jabri, V. 1996. Discourses on Violence: Conflict Analysis Reconsidered. 

Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press. 

Keashly, L. and R. J. Fisher. 1996. “A contingency perspective on conflict 

interventions: theoretical and practical considerations”. In Resolving 

International Conflicts: The Theory and Practice of Mediation, ed. J. 

Bercovitch. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 235-261. 

Kressel, K. 2000. “Mediation”. In The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: 

Theory and Practice, eds. M. Deutsch and P. T. Coleman. San Francisco, 

CA: Jossey-Bass, 522-545. 

Kressel, K., D. Pruitt and Associates, eds. 1989. Mediation Research: The 

Process and Effectiveness of Third-Party Intervention. San Francisco, CA: 

Jossey-Bass. 

Kriesberg, L. 1996. “Varieties of mediating activities and mediators in 

international relations”. In Resolving International Conflicts: The Theory 

and Practice of Mediation, ed. J. Bercovitch. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 

219-233. 

Lederach, J. P. 1997. Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in 

Divided Societies. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace. 

Mitchell, C. R. 1988. “The motives for mediation.” In New Approaches to 

International Mediation, eds. C. R. Mitchell and K. Webb. New York: 

Greenwood Press, 29-51. 

Moore, C. W. 1996. The Mediation Process: Practical Strategies for 

Resolving Conflict. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 

Prein, H. 1984. “A contingency approach for conflict intervention.” Group 

and Organization Studies, 9: 81-102. 

Ross, M. H. 1993. The Culture of Conflict: Interpretations and Interests in 

Comparative Perspective. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Rouhana, N. N. and S. H. Korper. 1997. “Power asymmetries and goals of 

unofficial third party intervention in protracted intergroup conflict”. Peace 

and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 3: 1-17. 

Rubin, J. Z. 1991. “The timing of ripeness and the ripeness of timing.” In 

Timing and De-escalation in International Conflicts, eds. L. Kriesberg and 

S. J. Thorson. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 237-46. 

Schaef, A.W. 1981. Women’s Reality: An Emerging Female System in a 

White Male Society. New York: Harper & Row. 

Taylor, A. and J. Beinstein Miller, eds. 1994. Conflict and Gender. 

Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. 

Touval, S. and I.W. Zartman, eds. 1985. International Mediation in Theory 

and Practice. Boulder, CO: Westview. 

Touval, S. and I. W. Zartman. 1989. “Mediation in international conflicts”. 

In Mediation Research: The Process and Effectiveness of Third-Party 

Intervention, eds. K. Kressel, D. Pruitt and Associates. San Francisco, CA: 

Jossey-Bass, 115-137. 

Weeks, D. 1992. The Eight Essential Steps to Conflict Resolution. Los 

Angeles, CA: Jeremy P. Tarcher. 

Zartman, I.W. 1985. Ripe for Resolution: Conflict and Intervention in 

Africa. New York: Oxford University Press. 

Zartman, I.W. and J. L. Rasmussen, eds. 1997. Peacemaking in 

International Conflict: Methods and Techniques. Washington, DC: United 

States Institute of Peace. 

Page 27

Methods of Third-Party Intervention - Berghof Handbook for Conflict ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?